2025 PLP 1596 (SCMR)
EJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHARY — Petitioner Versus The STATE through Prosecutor General Punjab and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2025 PLP 1596 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Naeem Akhter Afghan, Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar |
| Parties | EJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHARY — Petitioner Versus The STATE through Prosecutor General Punjab and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 PLP 1596 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 PLP 1596 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Naeem Akhter Afghan, Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 PLP 1596 (SCMR) (EJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHARY — Petitioner Versus The STATE through Prosecutor General Punjab and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shabid Masud, Advocate Supreme Court and Moiz Tariq, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the order dated 03.10.2024 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Crl. Misc. No. 48510-B of 2024).
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 395, 436, 427, 290, 291, 337-L(2), 109, 120-D, 121, 121-A, 131, 146, 153, 153-A, 153-B, 505, 148, 149 & 34
Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, dacoity, mischief by fire and explosive substance, causing damage or loss of fifty rupees or more through mischief, public nuisance, hurt, abetment, criminal conspiracy, attempt to wage war, attempting to seduce a soldier, rioting, giving provocation with intent to cause riot, promoting enmity between different groups, public mischief, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention, act of terrorism
Petitioner was not nominated in FIR for the occurrence of 9th May 2023
Petitioner was implicated by the complainant in his supplementary statement on the basis of tweets/audio/video clips on social media
Admissibility, relevancy and evidentiary value of the supplementary statement of the complainant as well as the alleged tweets/audio/video clips on social media were yet to be determined at the trial which had not yet concluded despite lapse of almost two years
Thus, bail could not be withheld as mere punishment
Petitioner had been arrested for the allegation of hatching the criminal conspiracy for the occurrence of 9th May, 2023
Allegation was yet to be proved by the prosecution at trial
Prosecution had yet to explain the delay of three days in lodging FIR as well as delay of about one month by the complainant for making the supplementary statement
On the basis of tentative assessment of the material so far available on record, the case against the petitioner also fell within the ambit of further inquiry
Petitioner was also entitled for grant of bail on the rule of consistency as co-accused had already been granted bail by the Court for the same allegations in the same FIR
Petition was converted into appeal and same was accepted, in circumstances and accused was granted bail.
S. 497
Scope
Observations made in a bail order are tentative in nature and should not influence merits of the case at the trial. Zulfiqar Abbas Naqvi, Special Prosecutor, Punjab, Tariq Siddique, Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab, Dr. Javid Asif, Deputy Superintendent Police and Zahid Saleem, Inspector for the State.
Judgment & Decree
NAEEM AKHTER AFGHAN, J.
The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the order dated 3rd October, 2024 passed by Lahore High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 48510-B/2024 whereby he was refused post-arrest bail under sections 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (the Act), 324, 395, 436, 427, 290, 291, 148, 149, 337-L(ii), 34, 109, 120-D, 121, 121-A, 131, 146, 153, 153-A, 153-B, 505 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (P.P.C.) in FIR No. 103/2023 lodged with police station (PS) Sarwar Road, District Lahore on 12th May 2023 by Inspector Sajjad Hussain.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not nominated in the FIR; he was implicated in the supplementary statement of the complainant with the allegation of hatching the conspiracy for the occurrence of 9th May, 2023; the investigation to his extent has already been completed; after submission of challan, the trial has commenced and eight prosecution witnesses have been examined; the petitioner is behind the bars since May 2023 but despite lapse of two years the trial has not concluded; the case against the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry; vide order dated 17th April 2025 co-accused Imtiaz Mehmood has already been granted pre-arrest bail by this Court for the same allegations and on the basis of rule of consistency, the petitioner is also entitled for the concession of bail.
3. While opposing the grant of post-arrest bail to the petitioner, learned Special Prosecutor, Punjab stated that subsequent to the registration of the FIR on 12th May, 2023, on the basis of tweets/audio/video clips on social media through Whattsapp, Facebook and Twitter, the petitioner was implicated by the complainant in supplementary statement dated 10th June, 2023; sufficient incriminating material is available on record to prima facie connect the petitioner for hatching the criminal conspiracy for commission of non-bailable offences; that delay in conclusion of trial cannot be wholly attributed to the prosecution as on most of the dates of hearing, adjournment was sought by the learned defence counsel.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Prosecutor, Punjab we have perused the available record which transpires that the petitioner was not nominated in FIR No. 103/2023 lodged with PS Sarwar Road, District Lahore on 12th May, 2023 for the occurrence of 9th May, 2023. The petitioner was implicated by the complainant in his supplementary statement dated 10th June, 2023 on the basis of tweets/audio/video clips on social media. The admissibility, relevancy and evidentiary value of the supplementary statement of the complainant as well as the alleged tweets/audio/video clips on social media are yet to be determined at the trial which has not yet concluded despite lapse of almost two years. According to the settled principles of law, bail cannot be withheld as mere punishment.
5. The petitioner has been arrested for the allegation of hatching the criminal conspiracy for the occurrence of 9th May, 2023. The allegation is yet to be proved by the prosecution at the trial. The prosecution has yet to explain the delay of three days in lodging FIR as well as delay of about one month for making the supplementary statement by the complainant.
6. On the basis of tentative assessment of the material so far available on record, the case against the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry. The petitioner is also entitled for grant of bail on the rule of consistency as co-accused Imtiaz Mehmood has already been granted bail by this Court for the same allegation in the same FIR vide order dated 17th April, 2025.
7. For the above reasons, while granting leave, the petition is converted into appeal and same is accepted. The petitioner is granted post-arrest bail under section 7 of the Act, 324, 395, 436, 427, 290, 291, 148, 149, 337-L(2), 34, 109, 120-D, 121, 121-A, 131, 146, 153, 153-A, 153-B, 505, P.P.C. in FIR No. 103/2023, PS Sarwar Road, District Lahore subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Hundred Thousand only) with PR bond of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
8. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not influence merits of the case at the trial. JK/E-2/SC Bail granted.